Community Mapping

The aim of community mapping is to ensure that all stakeholders within or neighbouring the conservancy are considered during the SAPA process.

Soysambu Conservancy provided a detailed map delineating its boundaries and essential physical features such as roads, rivers, and Lake Elmenteita. This map also included the locations and boundaries of communities within and surrounding the conservancy.

Following a meeting and exploratory visit with Soysambu management and representatives from neighbouring communities in September 2023 it was decided that this SAPA would focus on key neighbouring villages within the Oljorai, Kiptangwani, and Mbaruk locations, as well as those living within Soysambu.

Futhermore, at this stage of the process, some of the questions that would be specifically tailored to the Soysambu context were formulated. While many of these raised issues that were already aligned with standard assessment questions, some were articulated as additional queries in the household questionnaire.

Review existing information

At this stage, Soysambu Conservancy provided reports and meeting minutes from previous community engagements and projects. These were carefully reviewed to gain a comprehensive understanding of pertinent background details that a site profile could be formed. In turn, this allowed us to ensure that we were able to ensure that the most appropriate positive and negative social impacts and measures of wellbeing were being covered in the assessments; that a sufficient number of households would be sampled; that the assessment would be suitable to the cultural context.

Stakeholder Engagement

Finally, each location was visited, and the assessment was discussed with the Administrative Chief from the location. This in turn led to introductions to the heads of village. At this stage, the survey were able to understand the local context, ensure that community representatives were willing to participate in group discussions, and to secure permission to carry out the household surveys.

Scoping

The scoping phase of SAPA is dedicated to defining the assessment’s boundaries concerning space, time, and issues, prior to delving into detailed information gathering.

In terms of space, the villages and locations that had been visited and consulted were already set.

In terms of time, the SAPA primarily addresses social impacts that have occurred in the past, rather than those anticipated in the future. For this assessment, a recall period of five years was selected.

SAPA covers various social impact and governance issues. The standard aspects of assessment include:

• The impact of Soysambu and its development activities on people’s well-being.
• Identification of significant negative and positive impacts resulting from Soysambu and associated conservation and development initiatives.
• Evaluation of the recognition and respect of local women’s and men’s rights by Soysambu.
• Assessment of timely access to pertinent information by local women and men.
• Examination of the effectiveness of measures to mitigate negative impacts on local women and men.
• Evaluation of the equitable distribution of benefits related to Soysambu within and between local communities.

However, even these aspects of the assessment might overlook important issues. To address this, as part of the scoping step, a community meeting and stakeholder workshop is conducted. Furthermore, the household survey and the second community meeting are also designed to identify other potential gaps that may exist.

Information Gathering

The next step in the process is to gather information through a household survey. This is then followed once more by a discussion and feedback in a stakeholder workshop and community meeting. This balanced approach combines quantitative data from surveys with qualitative insights from community meetings and stakeholder workshops.

Conduct Household Survey

As discussed above, the sample size include 18 randomly selected villages, where a total of 10 households were surveys. In total, 181 households were sampled, over three weeks from November 20th to December 6th, 2023.

Sampling locations included Data collection locations included Kiwanja Ndege Mkulima, Leleshwa, Pema, Kapkures, Mbaruk, Muranga, Kiambogo, Ngatta, Mololine, Kelelwa, Soysambu Area, Oldubey, Kapedo, Jogoo, Echareria, Central Utut, Jolai 1,2, Sleeping Warrior Gate, Jolai Gate, and Kampi Turkana.

Each survey began with an explanation of the purpose of the survey, how data would be used, confidentiality measures, the participant’s rights, and sought their consent before proceeding.

Following each survey, the respondent was given a small token of appreciation in the form of sugar.

As the survey was being conducted, the facilitation team made random calls to 11% of all respondents to verify that the survey had taken place, to ask for any comments or feedback, and to ensure that the information provided was correct.

No negative feedback or concerns regarding the data collection process were received.

Figure 1: Map of Soysambu with sample sizes from each locations

Assessing

Taking Action

Positive Impacts by Location

The findings of the household survey reveal diverse perspectives across the four locations. When the survey respondents were asked about how important projects previously implemented by Soysambu were to their households the majority of respondents from Kiptangwani location assigned a rating of zero, indicating little importance. A significant portion expressed low importance, while only a few acknowledged medium to high importance, particularly concerning water provision and infrastructure development.

In Mbaruk location, respondents indicated that the previously mentioned projects had zero impact on their households, with very few attributing medium to high importance to them. In the Oljorai location, the influence of Soysambu Conservancy on the community appears notably positive. A majority of respondents affirmed the high importance of the projects to their households, with a significant number rating them as of medium importance. Fewer respondents indicated zero importance, while a minimal number expressed low importance.

The findings revealed mixed perceptions among residents within Soysambu regarding the significance of various projects. While a considerable number regarded most projects as of high importance, some perceived certain initiatives e.g sponsorship opportunities for students and community education programs, as having zero importance to their households. Consequently, the number of respondents expressing medium importance to the projects was minimal.

Figure 7: Positive impacts broken down into separate locations

Feelings of security

This was not across the board, but there were clear results that communities living on Soysambu conservancy felt much more secure than those living outside. Feeling secure is a crucial contributor to wellbeing.

Figure 8: How secure do you feel from the risk of theft of your property?

Negative Social Impacts

Although Soysambu Conservancy have made considerable efforts to improve relationships with communities within and neighbouring the conservancy, there are still a number of impacts that are having negative impacts on household well-being.

The findings from discussions with community representatives and the household surveys indicate that transmission of disease from wildlife and livestock in Soysambu to local livestock poses a significant concern for community members. Human-wildlife conflict also dominates in the area with wildlife originating from Soysambu exacerbating tensions and challenges for residents. Examples include the damage to crops, livestock and other property; injury of people; and lack of compensation for damage and injury by wildlife from Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) Moreover, restricted access to certain public utilities, such as roads, creates barriers to mobility and community well-being.

Respondents also said that Soysambu-related benefits are unfairly shared, for example, there was main concern on limited employment opportunities and a lack of prioritisation in employment within Soysambu. This together with the exclusion of the local community from involvement in development projects perpetuates feelings of exclusion.

There is also a perceived lack of appreciation from Soysambu Conservancy when they receive assistance from the community, such as when the community assists in putting out fires during dry seasons. Limited access to grazing areas and restrictions on tree cutting within Soysambu Conservancy compound the challenges faced by local residents.

Figure 9: Overall negative impacts across all communities

Negative Impacts by Location

The assessment findings suggest that respondents in Oljorai location considered all of the highlighted negative impacts as of high importance, implying a detrimental effect on their household well-being. Fewer respondents felt that the impacts were of medium importance while a number of them fel that some impacts were of zero importance for example conflict with wildlife, little grazing access to Soysambu and community not being prioritised in employment by Soysambu.

Opinions among respondents in Kiptangwani location were varied when it came to negative impacts. A significant majority of respondents highlighted that all negative impacts were of high importance and thus had a lot of impact on their household wellbeing, except for the restriction of access to public utilities, where most respondents expressed a perception of zero importance. Some respondents cited the negative impacts as having low importance, while others had no opinion at all.

Figure 10: Negative impacts broken down into separate locations

Damage by wildlife

These are not caused by wildlife from Soysambu, although people often attribute this to be the case.

Overall contribution to wellbeing

In terms of wellbeing, the survey looked at this from a number of perspectives. Firstly, the respondents were asked about their own overall self-assessed well-being. This was achieved by asking the household head How’s life and explaining that 1 means everything is very bad and 10 means everything is very good.

Figure 11: Responses when asked: How is your life at the moment?

Figure 12: How has the general wellbeing of your household changed over the last 5 years?

Then, once the respondent was asked about the positive and negative impacts of Soysambu conservancy, they were asked if they could take into account all of these impacts discussed, and summarise the overall impact of Soysambu on the well-being of their household.

Figure 13: The impact of Soysambu Conservancy on the well-being of their household

Finally, in order to understand how the impact of Soysambu Conservancy on household wellbeing is changing over time, the respondents were asked how has the contribution of Soysambu to your household’s well-being changed over the past 5 years?

Figure 14: How has the contribution of Soysambu to your households well-being changed over the past 5 years?

The survey results indicated that the majority of respondents perceived Soysambu’s overall contribution to well-being as neutral, taking into account both positive and negative impacts. There were exceptions, particularly in Oljorai and Mbaruk locations, where a few respondents felt that Soysambu had increased their well-being.

Governance

In the context of the Social Assessment of Protected Areas (SAPA), governance plays a pivotal role, encompassing various aspects such as power dynamics, relational structures, and mechanisms for accountability. Unlike management, governance within SAPA is concerned with decision-making processes, resource allocation, and ensuring the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in the conservation framework.

Governance within SAPA is characterized by: Recognition and Respect for Rights; Full and Effective Participation; Transparency and Access to Information; Mitigation of Negative Impacts. As part of the SAPA process we asked questions about each of these.

Participation in decision-making

Full and effective participation in decision making ensures that all relevant stakeholders are actively involved in the decision-making processes which fosters a sense of ownership and inclusivity.

In the communities of Mbaruk and Oljorai, a significant portion of residents express that they disagreed that they were involved in in decision-making processes that affect their communities. Conversely, within Soysambu itself, a notable proportion of individuals perceive a degree of participation, particularly in terms of awareness about their community representatives for engagements with Soysambu and the channels available for communication with them. In Kiptangwani, opinions vary, with some residents indicating a lack of participation, others acknowledging its existence, and a considerable number chosing to answer Don’t know”, when asked about the extent of their involvement in decision-making processes.

Figure 15: Map of survey locations

Transparency and access to information

Transparency and Access to Information: Facilitating transparency through timely access to relevant information in suitable formats, thereby promoting openness and trust among stakeholders.

Figure 16: Agree/Disagree on statements about transparency and access to information

Mitigation of negative impacts

Mitigation of Negative Impacts: Implementing effective measures to mitigate any adverse effects on indigenous peoples and local communities, ensuring their well-being and protection.

Figure 17: Agree/Disagree on statements about mitigation of negative impacts

Equitable benefit-sharing processes

Equitable Benefit Sharing: Ensuring that benefits derived from the protected area are equitably distributed among relevant stakeholders based on agreed-upon targeting options, thus promoting fairness and social justice.

Figure 18: Agree/Disagree on statements about equitable benefit-sharing processes

Rights

Recognition and Respect for Rights: Emphasizing the acknowledgment and respect for the rights of all relevant actors involved in the protected area management.

Figure 19: Agree/Disagree on statements about rights